Concerning the beginning of the World, that the time thereof is not precisely to be known, as men generally suppose: Of mens enquiries in what season or point of the Zodiack it began. That as they are generally made they are in vain, and as particularly applied uncertain. Of the division of the seasons and four quarters of the year, according to Astronomers and Physitians. That the common compute of the Ancients, and which is yet retained by most, is unreasonable and erroneous. Of some Divinations and ridiculous diductions from one part of the year to another. And of the Providence and Wisdom of God in the site and motion of the Sun.

CONCERNING the World and its temporal circumscriptions, who ever shall strictly examine both extreams, will easily perceive there is not only obscurity in its end, but its beginning; that as its period is inscrutable, so is its nativity indeterminable: That as it is presumption to enquire after the one, so is there no rest or satisfactory decision in the other. And hereunto we shall more readily assent, if we examine the informations, and take a view of the several difficulties in this point; which we shall more easily doe, if we consider the different conceits of men, and duly perpend the imperfections of their discoveries.

And first, The histories of the Gentiles afford us slender satisfaction, nor can they relate any story, or affix a probable point to its beginning. For some thereof (and those of the wisest amongst them) are so far from determining its beginning, that they opinion and maintain it never had any at all; as the doctrin of Epicurus implieth, and more postively Aristotle in his books De Cœo declareth. Endeavouring to confirm it with arguments of reason, and those appearingly demonstrative; wherein his labours are rational, and uncontroulable upon the grounds assumed, that is, of Physical generation, and a Primary or first matter, beyond which no other hand was apprehended. But herein we remain sufficiently satisfied from Moses, and the Doctrin delivered of the Creation; that is, a production of all things out of nothing, a formation not only of matter, but of form, and materiation even of matter it self.

Others are so far from defining the Original of the World or of mankind, that they have held opinions not only repugnant unto Chronology, but Philosophy; that is, that they had their beginning in the soil where they inhabited; assuming or receiving appellations conformable unto such conceits. So did the Athenians tearm themselves αὐτόχθονες or Aborigines, and in testimony thereof did wear a golden insect on their heads;[1] the same is also given unto the Inlanders, or Midland inhabitants of this Island by Cæsar. But this is a conceit answerable unto the generation of the Giants; not admittable in Philosophy, much less in Divinity, which distinctly informeth we are all the seed of Adam, that the whole world perished unto eight persons before the flood, and was after peopled by Colonies of the sons of Noah. There was therefore never any Autochthon, or man arising from the earth but Adam;[2] for the Woman being formed out of the rib, was once removed from earth, and framed from that Element under incarnation. And so although her production were not by copulation, yet was it in a manner seminal: For if in every part from whence the seed doth flow, there be contained the Idea of the whole; there was a seminality and contracted Adam in the rib, which by the information of a soul, was individuated into Eve. And therefore this conceit applyed unto the Original of man, and the beginning of the world, is more justly appropriable unto its end. For then indeed men shall rise out of the earth: the grave shall shoot up their concealed seeds, and in that great Autumn, men shall spring up, and awake from their Chaos again.

Others have been so blind in deducing the Original of things, or delivering their own beginnings, that when it hath fallen unto controversie, they have not recurred unto Chronologie or the Records of time: but betaken themselves unto probabilities, and the conjecturalities of Philosophy. Thus when the two ancient Nations, Egyptians, and Scythians contended for antiquity, the Egyptians pleaded their antiquity from the fertility of their soil,3 inferring that men there first inhabited, where they were most facility sustained; and such a land did they conceive was Egypt.

The Scythians, although a cold and heavier Nation urged more acutely, deducing their arguments from the two active Elements and Principles of all things, Fire and Water. For if of all things there was first an union, and that Fire over-ruled the rest: surely that part of earth which was coldest, would first get free, and afford a place of habitation. But if all the earth were first involved in Water, those parts would surely first appear, which were most high, and of most elevated situation, and such was theirs, These reasons carried indeed the antiquity from the Egyptians, but confirmed it not in the Scythians: for as Herodotus relateth from Pargitaus, their first King unto Darius, they accounted but two thousand years.[4]

As for the Egyptians they invented another way of trial; for as the same Author relateth,[5]Psammitichus their King attempted this decision by a new and unknown experiment, bringing up two Infants with Goats, and where they never heard the voice of man; concluding that to be the ancientest Nation, whose language they should first deliver.[6] But herein he forgot that speech was by instruction not instinct, by imitation, not by nature; that men do speak in some kind but like Parrets, and as they are instructed, that is, in simple terms and words, expressing the open notions of things; which the second act of Reason compoundeth into propositions, and the last into Syllogisms and Forms of ratiocination. And howsoever the account of Manethon the Egyptian Priest run very high, and it be evident that Mizraim peopled that Country (whose name with the Hebrews it beareth unto this day) and there be many things of great antiquity related in Holy Scripture, yet was their exact account not very ancient; for Ptolomy their Country-man beginneth his Astronomical compute no higher then Nabonasser, who is conceived by some the same with Salmanasser. As for the argument deduced from the Fertility of the soil, duly enquired, it rather overthroweth then promoteth their antiquity; if that Country whose Fertility they so advance, was in ancient times no firm or open land, but some vast lake or part of the Sea, and became a gained ground by the mud and limous matter brought downe by the River Nilus, which setled by degrees into a firm land. According as is expressed by Strabo,[7] and more at large by Herodotus, both from the Egyptian tradition and probable inducements from reason, called therefore fluvii donum, an accession of earth, or tract of land acquired by the River.

Lastly, Some indeed there are, who have kept Records of time, and of a considerable duration, yet do the exactest thereof afford no satisfaction concerning the beginning of the world, or any way point out the time of its creation. The most authentick Records and best approved antiquity are those of the Chaldeans; yet in the time of Alexander the Great, they attained not so high as the flood. For as Simplicius relateth, Aristotle required of Calisthenes, who accompanied that Worthy in his Expedition, that at his arrival in Babylon, he would enquire of the antiquity of their Records; and those upon compute he found to amount unto 1903 years: which account notwithstanding ariseth no higher then 95 years after the flood. The Arcadians I confess, were esteemed of great antiquity, and it was usually said they were before the Moon, according unto that of Seneca, Sydus post veteres Arcades editum; and that of Ovid, Luna gens prior illa fuit. But this as Censorinus observeth, must not be taken grossly, as though they were existent before that Luminary; but were so esteemed, because they observed a set course of year, before the Greeks conformed their year unto the course and motion of the Moon.

Thus the Heathens affording no satisfaction herein, they are most likely to manifest this truth, who have been acquainted with Holy Scripture, and the sacred Chronology delivered by Moses, who distinctly sets down this account, computing by certain intervals, by memorable Æras, Epoches, or terms of time. As from the Creation unto the flood, from thence unto Abraham, from Abraham unto the departure from Egypt, &c.. Now in this number have only been Samaritans, Jews, and Christians. For the Jews they agree not in their accounts, as Bodine in his method of History hath observed out of Baal Seder, Rabbi Nassom, Gersom, and others; in whose compute the age of the World is not yet 5400 years. The same is more evidently observable from two most learned Jews, Philo and Josephus; who very much differ in the accounts of time, and variously sum up these Intervalls assented unto by all. Thus Philo from the departure out of Egyptunto the building of the Temple, accounts but 920 years, but Josephus sets down 1062. Philo from the building of the Temple to its destruction 440, Josephus 470: Philo from the Creation to the Destruction of the Temple 3373, but Josephus 3513. Philo from the Deluge to the Destruction of the Temple 1718, but Josephus 1913.[8] In which Computes there are manifest disparities, and such as much divide the concordance and harmony of times.

For the Samaritans; their account is different from these or any others; for they account from the Creation to the Deluge, but 1302 years; which cometh to pass upon the different account of the ages of the Patriarks set down when they begat children. For whereas the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts account Jared 162 when he begat Enoch, they account but 62, and so in others. Now the Samaritans were no incompetent Judges of times and the Chronology thereof; for they embraced the five books of Moses, and as it seemeth, preserved the Text with far more integrity then the Jews; who as Tertullian, Chrysostom, and others observe, did several wayes corrupt the same, especially in passages concerning the prophesies of Christ; So that as Jerom professeth, in his translation he was fain sometime to relieve himselfe by the Samaritan Pentateuch; as amongst others in that Text, Deuteronomy 27, Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus quæ scripta sunt in libro Legis.[9] From hence Saint Paul[10] inferreth there is no justification by the Law, and urgeth the Text according to the Septuagint. Now the Jews to afford a latitude unto themselves, in their copies expunged the word בל or Syncategorematical term omnis: wherein lieth the strength of the Law, and of the Apostles argument; but the Samaritan Bible retained it right, and answerable unto what the Apostle had urged.

As for Christians from whom we should expect the exactest and most concurring account, there is also in them a manifest disagreement, and such as is not easily reconciled. For first, the Latins accord not in their account: to omit the calculation of the Ancients, of Austin, Bede, and others, the Chronology of the Moderns doth manifestly dissent. Josephus Scaliger, whom Helvicus seemes to follow, accounts the Creation in 765 of the Julian period; and from thence unto the Nativity of our Saviour alloweth 3947 years; But Dionysius Petavius a learned Chronologer dissenteth from this compute almost 40 years; placing the Creation in the 730 of the Julian period, and from thence unto the Incarnation accounteth 3983 years.

For the Greeks; their accounts are more anomalous: for if we recur unto ancient computes; we shall find that Clemens Alexandrinus, an ancient Father and Præceptor unto Origen, accounted from the Creation unto our Saviour, 5664 years; for in the first of his Stromaticks, he collecteth the time from Adam unto the death of Commodus to be 5858 years; now the death of Commodus he placeth in the year after Christ 194, which number deducted from the former, there remaineth 5664. Theophilus Bishop of Antioch accounteth unto the Nativity of Christ 5515, deduceable from the like way of compute, for in his first book ad Autolychum, he accounteth from Adam unto Aurelius Verus 5695 years; now that Emperour died in the year of our Lord 180, which deducted from the former sum there remaineth 5515. Julius Africanus an ancient Chronologer, accounteth somewhat less, that is, 5500. Eusebius, Orosius, and others dissent not much from this, but all exceed five thousand.

The latter compute of the Greeks, as Petavius observeth, hath been reduced unto two or three accounts. The first accounts unto our Saviour 5501, and this hath been observed by Nicephorus, Theophanes, and Maximus. The other accounts 5509; and this of all at present is generally received by the Church of Constantinople, observed also by the Moscovite, as I have seen in the date of the Emperours letters; wherein this year of ours 1645 is from the year of the world 7154, which doth exactly agree unto this last account 5509, for if unto that sum be added 1645, the product will be 7154, by this Chronology are many Greek Authors to be understood: and thus is Martinus Crusius to be made out, when in his Turcogrecian history he delivers, the City of Constantinople was taken by the Turks in the year ϛϟξα,[11] that is, 6961. Now according unto these Chronologists, the Prophecy of Elias the Rabbin, so much in request with the Jews, and in some credit also with Christians, that the world should last but six thousand years; unto these I say, it hath beene long and out of memory disproved, for the Sabbatical and 7000 year wherein the world should end (as did the Creation on the seventh day) unto them is long ago expired; they are proceeding in the eight thousand year, and numbers exceeding those days which men have made the types and shadows of these. But certainly what Marcus Leo the Jew conceiveth of the end of the heavens, exceedeth the account of all that ever shall be; for though he conceiveth the Elemental frame shall end in the Seventh or Sabbatical Millenary, yet cannot he opinion the heavens and more durable part of the Creation shall perish before seven times seven, or 49, that is, the Quadrant of the other seven, and perfect Jubilee of thousands.[12]

Thus may we observe the difference and wide dissent of mens opinions, and therefore the great incertainty in this establishment. The Hebrews not only dissenting from the Samaritans, the Latins from the Greeks, but every one from another. Insomuch that all can be in the right it is impossible; that any one is so, not with assurance determinable. And therefore as Petavius confesseth, to effect the same exactly without inspiration it is impossible, and beyond the Arithmetick of any but God himselfe. And therefore also what satisfaction may be obtained from those violent disputes, and eager enquirers in what day of the month the world began either of March or October; likewise in what face or position of the Moon, whether at the prime or full, or soon after, let our second and serious considerations determine.

Now the reason and ground of this dissent, is the unhappy difference betweene the Greek and Hebrew Editions of the Bible, for unto these two Languages have all Translations conformed; the holy Scripture being first delivered in Hebrew, and first translated into Greek. For the Hebrew; it seems the primitive and surest text to rely on, and to preserve the same entire and uncorrupt there hath been used the highest caution humanity could invent. For as R. Ben Maimon hath declared, if in the copying thereof one letter were written twice, or if one letter but touched another, that copy was not admitted into their Synagogues, but only allowable to be read in Schools and private families. Neither were they careful only in the exact number of their Sections of the Law, but had also the curiosity to number every word, and affixed the account unto their several books. Notwithstanding all which, divers corruptions ensued, and several depravations slipt in, arising from many and manifest grounds, as hath been exactly noted by Morinus in his preface unto the Septuagint.

As for the Septuagint, it is the first and most ancient Translation; and of greater antiquity than the Chaldee version; occasioned by the request of Ptolomeus Philadelphus King of Egypt, for the ornament of his memorable Library; unto whom the high Priest addressed six Jews out of every Tribe, which amounteth unto 72; and by these was effected that Translation we usually term the Septuagint, or Translation of seventy. Which name however it obtain from the number of their persons, yet in respect of one common Spirit, it was the Translation but as it were of one man; if as the story relateth, although they were set apart and severed from each other, yet were their Translations found to agree in every point, according as is related by Philo and Josephus; although we finde not the same in Aristæus,13 who hath expresly treated thereof. But of the Greek compute there have passed some learned dissertations not many years ago, wherein the learned Isacius Vossius makes the nativity of the world to anticipate the common account one thousand four hundred and forty years.

This Translation in ancient times was of great authority, by this many of the Heathens received some notions of the Creation and the mighty works of God; This in express terms is often followed by the Evangelists, by the Apostles, and by our Saviour himself in the quotations of the Old Testament. This for many years was used by the Jews themselves, that is, such as did Hellenize and dispersedly dwelt out of Palestine with the Greeks; and this also the succeeding Christians and ancient Fathers observed; although there succeeded other Greek versions, that is, of Aquila, Theodosius[14] and Symmachus; for the Latin translation of Jerom called now the Vulgar, was about 800 years after the Septuagint; although there was also a Latin translation before, called the Italick version. Which was after lost upon the general reception of the translation of St Jerom. Which notwithstanding (as he himself acknowledgeth15) had been needless, if the Septuagint copys had remained pure, and as they were first translated. But, (beside that different copys were used, that Alexandria and Egypt followed the copy of Hesychius, Antioch and Constantinople that of Lucian the Martyr, and others that of Origen) the Septuagint was much depraved, not only from the errors of the Scribes, and the emergent corruptions of time, but malicious contrivance of the Jews; as Justin Martyr hath declared, in his learned dialogue with Tryphon, and Morinus16 hath learnedly shewn from many confirmations.

Whatsoever Interpretations there have been since, have been especially effected with reference unto these, that is, the Greek and Hebrew text, the Translators sometimes following the one, sometimes adhering unto the other, according as they found them consonant unto truth, or most correspondent unto the rules of faith. Now however it commeth to pass, these two are very different in the enumeration of Genealogies, and particular accounts of time; for in the second intervail, that is, betweene the Flood and Abraham, there is by the Septuagint introduced one Cainan[17] to be the son of Arphaxad and father of Salah; whereas in the Hebrew there is no mention of such a person, but Arphaxad is set down to be the father of Salah. But in the first intervail, that is, from the Creation unto the Flood, their disagreement is more considerable; for therein the Greek exceedeth the Hebrew, and common account almost 600 years. And 'tis indeed a thing not very strange, to be at the difference of a third part, in so large and collective an account, if we consider how differently they are set forth in minor and less mistakable numbers. So in the Prophesie of Jonah, both in the Hebrew and Latin text, it is said, Yet forty dayes and Ninevy shall be overthrown: But the Septuagint saith plainly, and that in letters at length, τρεῖς ἡμέρας, that is, yet three dayes and Ninevy shall be destroyed. Which is a difference not newly crept in, but an observation very ancient, discussed by Austin and Theodoret, and was conceived an error committed by the Scribe.[18] Men therefore have raised different computes of time, according as they have followed their different texts; and so have left the history of times far more perplexed then Chronology hath reduced.

Again, However the texts were plain, and might in their numerations agree, yet were there no small difficulty to set down a determinable Chronology, or establish from hence any fixed point of time. For the doubts concerning the time of the Judges are inexplicable; that of the Reigns and succession of Kings is as perplexed; it being uncertain whether the years both of their lives and reigns ought to be taken as compleat, or in their beginning and but currant accounts. Nor is it unreasonable to make some doubt whether in the first ages and long lives of our fathers, Moses doth not sometime account by full and round numbers, whereas strictly taken they might be some few years above or under; as in the age of Noah, it is delivered to be just five hundred when he begat Sem; whereas perhaps he might be somewhat above or below that round and compleat number. For the same way of speech is usual in divers other expressions: Thus do we say the Septuagint, and using the full and articulate number, do write the Translation of Seventy; whereas we have shewen before, the precise number was Seventy two. So is it said that Christ was three days in the grave; according to that of Mathew, as Jonas was three days and three nights in the Whales belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth: which notwithstanding must be taken Synechdochically; or by understanding a part for an whole day; for he remained but two nights in the grave, for he was buried in the afternoon of the first day; and arose very early in the morning on the third; that is, he was interred in the eve of the Sabbath, and arose the morning after it.[19]

Moreover, although the number of years be determined and rightly understood, and there be without doubt a certain truth herein; yet the text speaking obscurely or dubiously, there is oft-times no slender difficulty at what point to begin or terminate the account. So when it is said, Exod. 12. the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years, it cannot be taken strictly, and from their first arrival into Egypt, for their habitation in that land was far less; but the account must begin from the Covenant of God with Abraham, and must also comprehend their sojourn in the land of Canaan, according as is expressed, Gal. 3. The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanul. Thus hath it also happened in the account of the 70 years of their captivity, according to that of Jeremy,20 This whole land shall be a desolation, and these nations shall serve the King of Babylon 70 years. Now where to begin or end this compute, ariseth no small difficulties; for there were three remarkable captivities, and deportations of the Jews. The first was in the third or fourth year of Joachim, and the first of Nabuchodonozer, when Daniel was carried away; the second in the reign of Ieconiah, and the eighth year of the same King; the third and most deplorable in the reign of Zedechias, and in the nineteenth year of Nabuchodonozer, whereat both the Temple and City were burned. Now such is the different conceit of these times, that men have computed from all; but the probablest account and most concordant unto the intention of Ieremy, is from the first of Nabuchodonozer unto the first of King Cyrus over Babylon; although the Prophet Zachary21 accounteth from the last. O Lord of hosts, How Long! Wilt thou not have mercy on Ierusalem, against which thou hast had indignation these three score and ten years? for he maketh this expostulation in the second year of Darius Histaspes, wherein he prophesied, which is about eighteen years in account after the other.

Thus also there be a certain truth therein, yet is there no easie doubt concerning the seventy weeks, or seventy times seven years of Daniel; whether they have reference unto the nativity or passion of our Saviour,[22] and especially from whence, or what point of time they are to be computed. For thus is it delivered by the Angel Gabriel:[23] Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people; and again in the following verse: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the Commandment to restore and to build Ierusalem unto the Messias the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublesome times; and after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. Now the going out of the Commandment to build the City, being the point from whence to compute, there is no slender controversie when to begin. For there are no less then four several Edicts to this effect, the one in the first year of Cyrus, the other in the second of Darius, the third and fourth in the seventh, and in the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus; although as Petavius accounteth, it best accordeth unto the twenty year of Artaxerxes, from whence Nehemiah deriveth his Commission. Now that computes are made uncertainly with reference unto Christ, it is no wonder, since I perceive the time of his Nativity is in controversie, and no less his age at his Passion, For Clemens and Tertullian conceive he suffered at thirty; but Irenæus a Father neerer his time, is further off in his account, that is, between forty and fifty.

Longomontanus a late Astronomer, endeavours to discover this secret from Astronomical grounds, that is, the Apogeum of the Sun; conceiving the Excentricity invariable, and the Apogeum yearly to move one scruple, two seconds, fifty thirds, &c. Wherefore if in the time of Hipparchus, that is, in the year of the Iulian period 4557 it was in the fifth degree of Gemini, and in the daies of Tycho Brahe, that is, in the year of our Lord 1588, or of the world 5554. the same was removed unto the fift degree of Cancer; by the proportion of its motion, it was at the Creation first in the beginning of Aries, and the Perigeum or nearest point in Libra. But this conceit how ingenious or subtile soever, is not of satisfaction; it being not determinable, or yet agreed in what time precisely the Apogeum absolveth one degree, as Petavius hath also delivered.24

Lastly, However these or other difficulties intervene, and that we cannot satisfie our selves in the exact compute of time, yet may we sit down with the common and usual account; nor are these differences derogatory unto the Advent or Passion of Christ, unto which indeed they all do seem to point, for the Prophecies concerning our Saviour were indefinitely delivered before that of Daniel; so was that pronounced unto Eve in paradise, that after of Balaam, those of Isaiah and the Prophets, and that memorable one of Iacob, the Scepter shall not depart from Israel until Shilo come; which time notwithstanding it did not define at all. In what year therefore soever, either from the destruction of the Temple, from the re-edifying thereof, from the flood, or from the Creation he appeared, certain it is, that in the fulness of time he came. When he therefore came is not so considerable, as that he is come: in the one there is consolation, in the other no satisfaction. The greater Quere is, when he will come again; and yet indeed is no Quere at all; for that is never to be known, and therefore vainly enquired; 'tis a professed and authentick obscurity, unknown to all but to the omniscience of the Almighty. Certainly the ends of things are wrapt up in the hands of God, he that undertakes the knowledge thereof, forgets his own beginning, and disclaims his principles of earth. No man knows the end of the world, nor assuredly of any thing in it: God sees it, because unto his Eternity it is present; he knoweth the ends of us, but not of himself: and because he knowes not this, he knoweth all things, and his knowledge is endless, even in the object of himself.

NOTES

* [My or others' notes are in square brackets]; Browne's marginalia is unmarked; {passages or notes from unpublished material by Browne is in curly braces}.

1 [As mentioned in Book I, Chapter V. The "insect" was in the form of a cicada, supposed itself to be born directly of the earth. According to Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities s.v. coma, "In ancient times at Athens the hair was rolled up into a kind of knot on the crown of the head; and fastened with golden clasps in the shape of grasshoppers. This fashion of wearing the hair, which was called κρωβύλος, had gone out just before the time of Thucydides (i.6); and what succeeded it in the male sex we do not know for certain." Xenophon (5.4.13) says that the Mossynoecians wore κρωβύλος as well. It is always difficult to judge exactly how literally one is to take such beliefs; the French may represent themselves as roosters without believing that they are in fact more feathered than other humans, not to mention Elks, Mooses, and Sons of this and that animal or tribe.]

2 [Wren: Authochthon [rising himselfe from the earthe] which was not to be granted of the first; who did not spring [as plants now do] of himselfe. For Adam was created out of the dust by God. The second Adam might be trulyer called Autochthon, in a mystical sense, not only in respect of his birthe, but of his resurrection also.]

4 [Pargitaus: thus all editions. two thousand: One thousand: Herodotus 4.7.1] "and they say that neither more nor less than a thousand years in all passed from the time of their first king Targitaüs to the entry of Darius into their country."]

11 [ϛϟξα: Browne has (following an error of his source) "koppa" (90) rather than "sampi" (900): ϛϡξα. Wren's correction to theta, στθξα, is also wrong.]

12 [Wren: The text convinceth this dotage of the Jew: St. Paule sayd 1500 years agoe, that the ends of the world were then coming, which was spoken not of hundreds of yeares but of thousands. Yf then Christ were borne in the 4000th yeare of the world, as the late learned Armachanus (Abp. Usher) opines, (not without excellent and undeniable reasons easie to be made good) we must divide the age of the world into 3 parts. The beginning of the world must be counted as the first 2000 yeares: the midste 4000; and the end 6000 or perhaps not soe much: for our Saviour sayes evidently there shall be an abbreviation, viz. in the last parte; but when that shall be Deus novit.]

13Aristeas ad Philocratorem de 72 interpretibus. [Josephus does not relate the story in quite this manner, merely saying that individual translators' work was approved, as it were, in committee. The letter of Aristeus is spurious.]

17 [Wren: How this second Cainan was foisted into the translation of the Septuagint, see that learned tract in Gregoryes Posthuma, p. 77, which he called Καιναν δευτερος: He [Browne] might have called him Ψευδοκαιναν: which had been most sutable to this learned work, of discovering comon errors.]

18 [Wren: "Writing γ for μ, which might easily be, not in the original, but in the second transcript." Numbers, because there is no contextual control, are extremely likely to go wrong in manuscript transmission. See, for instance, the apparatus to Mueller's Ptolomy.]

Before day; the whole being scarce 34 houres while he was in the grave, which is not the one halfe of three dayes and three nights, nor can be salved synechdochicallye.

'Tis strange to see how all the nation of expositors, since Christe, as yf they were infected with a disease of supinity, thinke they have abundantly satisfied the texte, by telling us, that speech of Christe comparinge himself to Jonas, must be understood synechdochically, which is: 1. not only a weak interpretation; 2. but ridiculous to Jews, Turks, and Infidels; 3. and consequently derogatory to the truth; who expresly puts in the reddition, 3 dayes and 3 nights, by an emphaticall expression. Which as it was punctually fortold, the express time of 3 dayes and 3 nights; soe it was as punctually performed (usque ad apices) for as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale, which admits no synechdoche; so the sonn of man was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights without any abatement of a moment. That which begat this error was a mistake of the dayes and nights, spoken of Jonas. And from thence not only unwarrantably but untruly applyed to Christ's stay in the grave. We must therefore distinguish of dayes and nights, and take them either in Moses' sense, for the whole revolution of the ☉ to the easterne pointe after 24 houres; which most men by like contagion of error, call the natural day, wheras itt is rather to be cald artificiall, as being compounded of a day and a night, whereas the night is properly no parte univocall of a day, but a contradistinct member thereto. Now in this sense yf the days and nights be conceived; it is impossible to make good the one halfe of 3 dayes and 3 nights by any figurative for synechdochical sense: for from the time of his enterring, very neer 6 at even on Friday to 6 at even on Saturday are but 24 houres: to which adde from 6 at even to 3 or 4 next morne, for itt was yet darke, when Mary Magd. came and saw the stone remooved) viz. 10 houres more, they will make in all but thirty foure houres, that is but 1-10/24 day and night of æquinoctial revolution. Or else in our Saviour's sense, Jo. xi. 9, where by the day Christe understands, the very day-light, or natural day, caused by the presence of the sun; to the which night is always opposed as contradistinct, as is manifest from that very place. For as itts alwayes midday directly under the ☉, soe there is midnight alwayes opposite to midnoone through the world. And these 2 have runn opposite round the world, simul et semel every 24 houres since the creation, and soe shall doe, while time shall be noe more. I say therefore that thoughe in respect of Jesus' grave in the garden he lay but 36 houres in the earthe yet in respect of the world for which he suffered, there were 3 distincte dayes and nights actually in being, while he lay in the bowels of the earthe: (which is to be distinctly noted to justifie of him, who did not, could not, æquivocate) Friday night in Judæa, and a day opposite thereto in the other hemisphere, just 12 houres; Saturday 12 houres in Judæa, and the opposite night 12 houres; Saturday night in Judæa, and the opposite day elsewhere at the same time. And he that denyes this, hath lost his sense: for I ask were there not actually 3 essentiall dayes and 3 nights (sub coelo) during his sepulture. And yf this cannot be denyed by any but a madman, I aske againe did Christ suffer for Judæa only, or for the whole world? least of all for Judæa, which for his unjust death was exterminate and continues accurst. Soe that henceforth we shall need no synechdoche to make good the prophetick speech of him that could not lie: who sayde, sic erit Filius hominis in corde terræ tribus diebus et tribus noctibus; and this was truly fulfilled usque ad momenta, and therefore I dare believe it, and noe Jew or Turk can contradict it. (He that made several natures of day and night in this sense: sayd he would lye in the grave 3 of these dayes and 3 nights.)

To which the bedazed reader can only respond, If this is telling the truth, why not go ahead and lie? since in either case, our knowledge of the truth is advanced not one iota.]

22 [Wren: the learned thinke they have reference to neither of them. For most of the learned conceive, that those 70 weeks, or seven times seventy ended with the destruction of the citye; which was 70 yeares after the nativitye, and 38 after the passion of Christe ....]